Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[pahnphoenix]

What's the point?

As far as people saying "We're held back from nuclear energy because of liberals like you"... well... that's completely true. Liberals are by definition a bunch of pussies. Liberal sissies have irrational fears of nuclear energy and guns. Meanwhile, they actively refuse to have a coherent foreign policy (with some choosing to instead side with the enemy), put up idiotic "gun-free school zone" signs everywhere, and manage to simultaneously find ways to the destroy constitution as they find imaginary entitlements and rights in the document that has no mention of abortion or gay marriage.

It's a completely valid position that refers more to the mindset of the person than the person's individual actions.

the mindset of individuals has no effect on policy whatsoever, unless those individuals have political power or network with (read: more or less pay) people with political power. it would be cute that everyday leftists/liberals/moderates/conservatives/neocons don't seem to realize this and actually think it matters whether, say, i'm a pussy or a Man or a conscientious citizen or whatever (at least that it matters in terms of policy), if it weren't so sad.

as for the rest of what you're saying, assuming you're implying that liberals with political power did the things you say, i know that you're either trolling or don't know anything at all about politics or history, so i'll have to pass on the discussion.

[Deftscythe]

I like how people call out Leaf for trolling and then reply to him seriously anyways.

[Kuya]

That means they're getting trolled.

[Deftscythe]

Yes, yes it does.

[pahnphoenix]

i think the existence of this thread kind of confirms the idea of suspension of disbelief. and anyway, the critique i'm levying at leif's persona holds of most of you when you're serious, i'd imagine.

[Max™]

The problem is that climate change is much more complex than "oh air temperature is higher hurr durr". We don't know what it does to wind patterns or ocean currents (at least from what I've tried finding), which can GREATLY affect agricultural output (negatively).

It's also complex enough that we don't know exactly how to model it accurately, but we still know exactly how to model it accurately enough to determine exactly what effect we have on it.

Fucking amazing stuff.


Wasn't on all day, will get to my "suggested reading list" later, btw Trist.

[Shiroikage]

Go fuck yourself, Max.

[Linliel]

Go fuck yourself, Max.

^

[Kryssan]

it's sad how so many people seem to think the united states is run in some kind of overwhelmingly democratic fashion. in irl conversations and on messageboards, people actually state things like "we're held back from nuclear energy b/c of liberals like you," as if a leftist/liberal goes down to city hall and sets energy policy; as if anyone you know has any fucking say at all in energy policy. keep writing letters to your congressmen, and never let go of your dreams.

What's the point?

As far as people saying "We're held back from nuclear energy because of liberals like you"... well... that's completely true. Liberals are by definition a bunch of pussies. Liberal sissies have irrational fears of nuclear energy and guns. Meanwhile, they actively refuse to have a coherent foreign policy (with some choosing to instead side with the enemy), put up idiotic "gun-free school zone" signs everywhere, and manage to simultaneously find ways to the destroy constitution as they find imaginary entitlements and rights in the document that has no mention of abortion or gay marriage.

It's a completely valid position that refers more to the mindset of the person than the person's individual actions.

the mindset of individuals has no effect on policy whatsoever, unless those individuals have political power or network with (read: more or less pay) people with political power. it would be cute that everyday leftists/liberals/moderates/conservatives/neocons don't seem to realize this and actually think it matters whether, say, i'm a pussy or a Man or a conscientious citizen or whatever (at least that it matters in terms of policy), if it weren't so sad.

as for the rest of what you're saying, assuming you're implying that liberals with political power did the things you say, i know that you're either trolling or don't know anything at all about politics or history, so i'll have to pass on the discussion.

My my, you do toss such a lovely carrot out there.


How can you say that honestly? Political faction doesn't really have a lot to do with the nuclear option. The only real reason anyone supports nuclear power currently is because some of them realize what happens when your powergrid can't support the constituents. Most people will continue seeing it as a necessary evil for a long time to come. The current use and construction of nuclear power plants is hardly economical from any stand point. Its actually quite an interesting study of short term gain versus long term losses.


When all your constituents fear living near nuclear power plants, yes, the public opinion of individuals can indeed amount to something very akin to power. They play a desperate balancing act of trying to keep the people happy by not having nuclear power whilst at the same time providing them with enough power so that the light always turns on and stays on when you flick the switch. Its kind of like the discussion on anything else; we want x, but we're not willing to pay y, even though we need y+z in payment in order to supply x. While individually their opinion is most likely worth no more than a grain of sand, collectively, they've been cockblocking us for decades.

[pahnphoenix]

are you talking about individual plant construction, or the general reliance on nuclear power? if it's plant construction, i'm sure there's lots of complicating factors not caught by my quick example; local politics, local economic interests, etc. if it's the latter, i'm sure that it really doesn't matter at all how people feel about nuclear power... there's no machinery in place to connect people's opinions/feelings with the actual decision-making process.

[Kryssan]

are you talking about individual plant construction, or the general reliance on nuclear power? if it's plant construction, i'm sure there's lots of complicating factors not caught by my quick example; local politics, local economic interests, etc. if it's the latter, i'm sure that it really doesn't matter at all how people feel about nuclear power... there's no machinery in place to connect people's opinions/feelings with the actual decision-making process.

Actually, I wasn't referring to local interests at all, though those also play a part. Getting NRC licensing to build a plant is not easy or cheap. My reference however was to the current design and operations of the current reactor plants. Thermal vs Fast, Rankine vs Brayton, BWR vs PWR vs Exotic.


I am confused by your other statement. What reliance on nuclear power do you speak of? The US has less than 20% of its powergrid supplied by nuclear energy. Natural gas actually makes up a larger percentage of the grid than nuclear does, at least based on the 2007 statistics from the DoE. Considering the rate of nuclear construction (haha) I don't really think I need to look up the difference in the past two years. If you're speaking about other countries that have a broader outlook, then forgive me. There are some countries that actually have grids that are supplied by nuclear power, and while they suffer from the same economic dilemma I brought up earlier, they are at least moving forwards. If you're trying to state that public opinion doesn't have an affect on the utility of nuclear power though, which is what I read your statement as, I'm afraid I must strongly disagree. The newest plant we have in the US is over 13 years old, with the oldest still in operation being 40 years old. The number of plants constructed after the Chernobyl-4 and TMI-3 accidents speaks for itself. Even if that alone was not enough to speak for itself, compare then with the number of reactor plants that are 'commissioned' but not 'complete' per their order. There are several plants that were designed to have more reactors than they currently have, but after the aforementioned accidents the construction on those facilities was halted.


Public opinion has a great affect on my field. Did you know they halted production on the AP-1000 that I posted in the science thread? They halted it because the new containment building proposed for it hasn't actually been tested to survive the impact of a passenger aircraft, whereas the old Gen II designs have. Go on and tell me that public opinion doesn't matter, really. Go ahead and name for me all the buildings you can think of that are required to be tested by actually taking an aircraft and ramming into said building to prove they can withstand it. BTW, that requirement existed before 9/11.

[pahnphoenix]

that doesn't even approach an explanation of or argument for the relevance of public opinion. chernobyl happened, fewer plants were built, therefore public opinion matters? the USA relies primarily on gas/oil rather than nuclear energy so public opinion matters? nuclear power plants have to undergo more (probably superfluously) strict safety testing, so public opinion matters? what? you're not making any connections at all.

if you're saying that a select group of people who have influence over these matters (senators, various committees, various business people) let misunderstandings guide their opinion and get in the way of production, i'd happily defer since you obviously know more about the field than i do. if you're saying that everyday people have a say in how or where nuclear power plants are built, you're making a very large claim with no argument at all. the only way in the common person has in such things is insofar as their behavior/opinions affect business around them (their role as consumers), and possibly action in local politics.

[Kryssan]

Allow me to introduce you to something called a Local Commission for Information (CLI). At least thats what the French call it, same principle but different names across the various countries. Its a committee established anytime someone goes to build a new nuclear power plant that interfaces with your 'everyday' people, and has such jurisdictions as you bring up. What this committee is made up of and who its organized by varies depending on said country.


Now, I can't say I've ever heard of the public shitcanning an entire project before, but they can definitely delay it. Check out the history on NIF if you need an example. ITERs history is more along the lines of what you're talking about, where politics dictates the dirty games. This is the majority sample - but I must strongly disagree with your affirmation. There are methods in place for the general public to interface with their various countries Department of Energy equivalent for the construction of new power plants, and they do play a part in them if they so choose. Of course, seeing as you can't get a lot of people to cross the street to vote, these avenues aren't always the most well known.


Now, lets sidestep a bit. Public opinion and the weight of lobbyists had a great deal of effect on the Yucca Mountain project. It's effectively dead at this point. Of course, I know you're going to say that lobbyists hardly count as an 'everyday person' example, but it is public opinion that is driving these actions, not economy. We need facilities such as Yucca, especially now with their attempt to renew the nuclear side with 30+ new nuclear reactors around the US. We cannot expect the onsite facilities to continue housing spent fuel waste, they just don't have the space. But public opinion will not let this waste be transported from its current locations. That has nothing to do with regulations or big business or politics. The casks are stupid safe, regulations have been in place for a long time for this sort of event.


No, your 'everyday layman' isn't going to pick up a phone and make a change in nuclear policy. But a bunch of them acting through various organizations do indeed. I honestly can't think of any corporations that actually try to block nuclear power - its a goldmine for them. You have a very select market to sell to with a low amount of competition. If you'd like to read some amusing history regarding corporate role with nuclear power, checkout Admiral Rickover and his battle over Hafnium manufacturing.

[Cadsuane]

What is the extent to which you're willing to take that line of argument anyway? I wouldn't think you mean to say that the results of polls reflecting public attitudes or the casting of votes have zero effect on policy because that's demonstrably false. Insofar as the outcome of this discussion and many others like it don't have any discernable effect on climate policy, yeah sure I guess.

[Max™]

Go fuck yourself, Max.

<3

[Solefald]

The main impediment to nuclear plant construction in the US is cost. The low price of oil in the 80s and 90s kept energy prices low, too low to make building a nuclear power plant a safe bet, and even today it is considered a very risky investment. So risky that big banks (Goldman, etc) won't finance it without government loan guarantees.

[Demosthenes11]

The main impediment to nuclear plant construction in the US is cost. The low price of oil in the 80s and 90s kept energy prices low, too low to make building a nuclear power plant a safe bet, and even today it is considered a very risky investment. So risky that big banks (Goldman, etc) won't finance it without government loan guarantees.

...what? nuclear power is by far the cheapest longterm investment and most secure due to its self dependency

[pahnphoenix]

What is the extent to which you're willing to take that line of argument anyway? I wouldn't think you mean to say that the results of polls reflecting public attitudes or the casting of votes have zero effect on policy because that's demonstrably false. Insofar as the outcome of this discussion and many others like it don't have any discernable effect on climate policy, yeah sure I guess.

i'm not willing to take the discussion very far. especially since the nuclear power example was in service of the larger point about public opinion as it applies to stuff like global warming. also, the conversation with kryssan has reached a point where i'd have to do more research than i'm willing to to make any sort of worthwhile contribution; i think there's some fundamental truth about public opinion and energy policy in what i said earlier, but i'm sure there's loads of details that complicate things (in fact, possibly enough to invalidate my "fundamental truth" claim).

the fact remains that arguments such as you find on messageboards about, say, war, global warming, health care, etc, have literally no effect on policy. not even a tiny bleeding over effect whereby the people who get swayed (or enraged, or whatever) end up influencing policy down the road. sure, opinion polls have measurable effects on policy, but not in a way such that opinion relates to any sort of personal power or say for those polled... for example, overwhelming lack of support for a war might influence how the war is conducted or covered in the news, but that's a far cry from popular support having anything to do with whether we go to war, or from personal empowerment.

this is getting kind of tiresome though... not the debate/discussion, but my trying to generate stuff to say. i'm going to bow out. i'll throw in some lefty stuff in the future i'm sure, but if anyone wants to read more about the relationship between nuclear power and the public, i don't have anything intelligent to say further. (if i did, it would be pressing this notion of the public's discomfort with transferring nuclear waste and whether or not the measures kryssan mentioned are ultimately efficacious for translating public opinion to policy, but that conversation goes better when the person pressing--me--does further research to shore up his questions. so, alas)

edit: p.s. for what it's worth, what solefald said is what i'd heard re: impediments to plant construction in the U.S. (though supposedly in england it might have more to do with public opinion as power (?)), with demosthenes11 reply being a bit of a fundamental misunderstanding about how business is conducted in the U.S. as stated above though, that's where my "knowledge" ends though, so i'm not charging in full-on. happily, i was able to make most of my earlier posts out of pure logic (event A coincides with event B, therefore A caused B = invalid, whether spoken by an expert or a layperson, and whether the speaker has unspoken knowledge explaining the statement or not).

[Kryssan]

The main impediment to nuclear plant construction in the US is cost. The low price of oil in the 80s and 90s kept energy prices low, too low to make building a nuclear power plant a safe bet, and even today it is considered a very risky investment. So risky that big banks (Goldman, etc) won't finance it without government loan guarantees.

Actually, you're a little backwards on your emphasis. Its only in recent times with the liberalization of the electrical utility community that what you speak of for economy has become an important detail. In the past, nuclear utilities were either state-owned or regulated monopolies, which allowed the long term investment of a power plant to be overcome since it was a guarantee that the plant would fulfill its energy production contracts without the individual utilities being at high risk. Nowadays though with the coops and small independent utilities operating on a much shorter time contract scale, the high initial cost of a nuclear plant makes those contracts look far less attractive. The NRC also requires money to be stored away for the plants eventual decom. There is high risk associated with this field currently though, but not really for your reasons; since it is very possible that other energy sources could start seeing hefty taxes levied on their power production methods, the power community is sitting on the fence waiting and watching. With the new slew of contracts for 30+ reactors, its a very close game being played.


You can't really relate fuel costs, because nuclear power always wins there, now and in the past. The cost analysis is mainly focused on construction and time of construction, refueling overhauls, and the eventual disposition of the radioactive fuel material waste. Hence in another discussion my topic of fast vs thermal and short vs long term gains.

[Solefald]

I don't really disagree with you except to say that the economics of power plant construction are much stronger than NIMBY activism, on balance. Coal power plants are far more dangerous to public health than nuclear ones, and we have hundreds of them.